Thursday, May 27, 2010

Feminists tap into America's tradition of overreacting to rape in order to wage war on a gender

Feminist rape activists have dominated the public discourse on rape for the past thirty years.  More and more, rape, as defined by law or in college handbooks, has become a game of "gotcha!" with the intention of branding a male (usually a young man or boy) as a rapist for doing what most people would think is not rape. Common sense is sacrificed for robotic adherence to harsh, bright-line rules. 

A boy who is engaging in consensual sex delays withdrawing for five to ten seconds (by the girl's own admission) and he's a rapist, convicted of a felony that will forever brand him as a the most serious criminal aside from murderer. 

A college couple engages in sex after drinking: he, and he alone, is a rapist, because the one drink she had interfered with her ability to consent with 100 percent crystal clarity, and only the male is deemed to be responsible for sexual transgressions. 

A young couple has had sex dozens of times without words being spoken: he's a rapist if he proceeds in the same manner they've repeatedly done it in the past if she decides to complain about it because she does not give enthusiastic verbal assent. Even though he didn't use force; even though she never said "don't"; and even though she's been perfectly happy with this kind of sex many, many previous times.
 
Gotcha!  He's a rapist!  He goes to prison for many years, or is expelled from college after a hearing in a decidedly anti-male kangaroo court.  War has been declared on an entire gender, and persons of goodwill stand by and allow it.  Why?  One reason is because America has a long, painful tradition of overreacting to rape, so this form of overreaction seems par for the course.

The Martinsville Seven: seven lives were the price for one rape

On Friday morning, February 2, 1951, four young black men, none of them old enough to legally buy a drink, were put to death for the gang rape of a white housewife.  The following Monday, three more black men were executed for the same rape.  Today, the "Martinsville Seven" are largely forgotten, but their case was significant.  The men were tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by all-white, all-male juries.  Before the youngest was executed, he said: "God knows I didn't touch that woman, and I'll see ya'll on the other side."  It was the biggest mass execution for rape in American history.  The case was rife with racial tension as activists protested because only black men received the death penalty in Virgina for rape. 

Indeed, between 1930 and the early 1970s, 405 black men were executed in Southern states for rape.  While it is impossible to say what percentage of the convictions that led to these executions were based on actual guilt, it is fair to say that it was very difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for black men to get a fair trial for the alleged rape of a white woman in the old South.

While activists in the Martinsville Seven case protested the unfairness of executing only black men for rape, no one thought to protest the inherent and blatant injustice of taking the life of a male of any color for the rape of a female. 

Rape historically punished more severely than the crime deserves

Throughout history, rape has often elicited a visceral reaction of outrage exceeding the actual harm inflicted by the crime.  Whether by "legal" sentences (executions or excessively lengthy prison terms), or illegal lynchings and other vigilante "justice," men traditionally have often sought to punish rapists in a manner that is, by any rational measure, not proportional to the actual crime.  Meting out excessive punishments for rape also means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn't commit.

Given its pervasive law and order attitudes, America has a long and shameful history of rape hysteria, predating the feminist revolution.  President Theodore Roosevelt's December 3, 1906 State of the Union address spent an inordinate amount of time discussing a problem peculiar to black men: lynchings for allegedly committing rape that too often took the lives of innocent men.  In that speech, Roosevelt declared without equivocation (and without explanation) that rape is a crime "even worse than murder" that deserves the death penalty.

The death penalty for rape finally outlawed 

Until the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977), states were permitted to punish the rape of adult women with the death penalty.  It is interesting that outlawing the death penalty for the rape of women coincided with the height of the feminist revolution.

After Coker, the death penalty was still permitted for the rape of children.  Six states still punished the rape of a child with the death penalty at the time it was ruled unconstitutional less than two years ago in Kennedy v. Louisiana, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5262 (June 25, 2008).  In that case, Justice Kennedy (no relation to the convicted man), writing for the majority, explained that the practice imposing the death penalty for child rape violated "evolving standards of decency," the yardstick the court uses to decide whether a punishment is cruel and unusual.  overreacting

Importantly, in Kennedy, the court expressly noted that one of the bases for its holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape was the risk of false claims. The Court explained: "The problem of unreliable, induced, and even imagined child testimony means there is a 'special risk of wrongful execution' in some child rape cases. . . . . This undermines, at least to some degree, the meaningful contribution of the death penalty to legitimate goals of punishment. Studies conclude that children are highly susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques like repetition, guided imagery, and selective reinforcement."

A significant footnote to the Kennedy case, which underscores the Court's concern about false claims, is that the victim in that particular case made a false accusation before the real rapist was arrested. Specifically, after the victim was raped by her stepfather, the victim and her stepfather both claimed that the girl was raped by two neighborhood boys. "She told the psychologist that she had been playing in the garage when a boy came over and asked her about Girl Scout cookies she was selling; and that the boy 'pulled [her by the legs to] the backyard,'. . . where he placed his hand over her mouth, 'pulled down [her] shorts,' . . . ." This, of course, turned out to be a false accusation.  What might have happened if that boy had been put to death for a rape he didn't commit?

Feminism capitalizes on America's overreaction to rape

During the oral argument of the Kennedy case, Justice Ginsburg noted that imposing the death penalty in rape cases stems from a tradition "when a woman was regarded as as good as dead once she was raped; and the crime was thought to be an offense against her husband or her father as much as it was to her."  Treating rape as akin to murder, and thus warranting the death penalty, did "no kindness to women" she noted.  See oral argument transcript at pages 23-24.

The "legal" executions of men for rape, and the illegal lynchings for rape that President Theodore Roosevelt decried, were carried out almost exclusively by men. Indeed, as we relate on this site, the killings, beatings, and other physical atrocities perpetrated against men falsely accused of rape are almost always carried out by men.  This, of course, does not excuse the false accuser, who is almost always female, of her responsibility for the harm, but it does belie modern feminist assertions that men don't take rape with sufficient seriousness.  If anything, men have time and time again overreacted to rape out of a deeply ingrained sense of chivalry.

Modern feminism, unfortunately, has turned overreaction to rape into an art form.  Too many devotees of this strange cult do not want to punish actual rapists so much as to wage war on an entire gender by turning rape into a symbol of oppression of all women. Modern feminism has transformed rape into a "gotcha" crime by engorging its definition to include garden variety sexual conduct. Among other innovations, through feminism's advocacy, the requirements of force, resistance, and corroboration were eliminated. And who suffers because of this? Innocent men and boys who never committed rape, but who are easily charged because the garden variety sexual conduct they engaged in is turned into "rape" by virtue of a simple accusation. 

Modern feminism, with its twisted and misandric take on rape, dominates the public discourse on the subject precisely because its punitive attitudes toward "rapists" are acceptable to chivalrous men, who haven't paid much attention to the details of feminism's war on rape.  If they did, perhaps they would realize that modern feminism doesn't much care if innocent men and boys are snagged along with the guilty, and that even chivalrous men are at risk of being falsely accused.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Meting out excessive punishments for rape also means that the innocent are often punished severely for crimes they didn't commit.
****

That's right! And those responsible usually respond by pretending that our legal system never, ever convicts innocent men.

It's a crock and it always has been.

Nick S said...

There are often so many issues that arise from these threads, that I don't have time to set them all out fully.

When feminists claim that men should not have sex with drunk women, or that it is rape if they do, they don't seem to examine the paternalistic assumptions inherent in such a stance.

Essentially they are saying that it is up to men to know what is best for women better than women claim themselves. So it doesn't matter if the woman is fully conscious and more than willing. As a man, it is up to you to know better. You should realize that she is just a silly woman who cannot handle her drink and doesn't know what she is doing. Even if she seems to want sex, what she really needs is a life of chastity and purity. As the only man there, it is your job to look after that. Don't let her ruin herself and her virtue just because she is a silly, fickle woman who doesn't know what is best for her.

Oh, and by the way, remember to respect women as your equals. Even though at other times you have to play the role of babysitter and assume that women are children.

Truly, it is hard to take gender equality seriously!

Anonymous said...

These same feminists also argue tooth and nail that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the women getting drunk and sleeping with anything that has a pulse. So long as women are the ones who can use the nuclear weapon of a false rape accusation it's supposed to be all good.

Of course, men having casual sex with women is exploitive.

Nick S said...

Anon, that's correct. Women should be free to do whatever they please. But women should never accept any responsibility for their own poor choices and simply hold the nearest man responsible and wreck his life.

Anonymous said...

Now, I will say this: if several men broke into my home and rape a woman I was with, I would be furious.

But that does not justify what amounts to the lynching of any several men I can get my hands on. Any system that doesn't make allowance for its own fallibility is an immoral system.

Anonymous said...

American hysteria? I don't believe it. haha

Well, there were States that had the death penalty for giving a drug to a minor and for all I know they may still have it. And as you know, years ago a minor was a person under 21.

Anonymous said...

Females getting drunk and having sex? That's not rape, that's a joke you should laugh at.

I was reading a story about a rape that recently took place in China. It seems that some young homeless guy in his 20's had sex with some farmer's 12yo daughter. His punishment was to pay the farmer a boar. Well, I guess that could be expensive because a big pig may cost a lot of money in what appeared to be a poor rural area I believe. But there were no lynch mobs or people trying to tar and feather the culprit.

Anonymous said...

The Rape hysteria perversion has "Empowered" the perverts.

gwallan said...

Anonymous said...

These same feminists also argue tooth and nail that there's nothing whatsoever wrong with the women getting drunk and sleeping with anything that has a pulse. So long as women are the ones who can use the nuclear weapon of a false rape accusation it's supposed to be all good.

Said it before...WILL say it again...

Feminism started out believing in womens' equality TO men. Unfortunately it is now about little more than complete license for women.

Anonymous said...

One for our strike team to review:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9723

AfOR said...

There is a parallel.

The full stop / period at the end of the previous sentence could, just as easily, have been an 800 x 600 pixel jpeg, resized in the HTML to appear 1 x 1 pixels.

So, already, by the time you have read this far, your computer and operating system, which means in legal terms YOU, have downloaded and MADE a copy of (in your browsers cache) that image.

If that image happened to be child pornography, you get charged with MAKING child pornography, and you *will* be found guilty and sentenced, because you fulfil all the criteria for a guaranteed conviction.

No "man in the street" would define what you just did as "making" that image, and yet the Law now does.

All that is required is to Legally re-define the meaning of a word, so that it no longer means what it means to the man in the street.

This is *exactly* what the feminists / grievance industry has achieved over the past 40 years.

It becomes even more "interesting" when you start to cross borders, which all net users do all the time, without concious thought or realisation.

I could link to copies of The Sun newspaper, famous for its Page 3 topless pictures of girls in provocative poses, historically, such as Sam Fox, being 16 years and 4 days old when they first appeared.

I believe under current US laws that would make all of you "slam dunk" convicted child pornographers.

Of course the press articles describing your convictions would go to some lengths to point out that you convicted paedophiles were actually convicted for viewing something that was quite legal in the country of origin, and point out that we are talking about a young woman of 16 with well developed mammaries appearing in a major national newspaper in the UK, and not, as your conviction will imply, some child about 3 foot high...

Maybe it's time for some honeytraps.

Anonymous said...

"One for our strike team to review:

http://anarchistnews.org/?q=node/9723"

It seems that "anarchist" now means liberal feminist. Regardless, those people are just silly and should be ignored.

Anonymous said...

"it is fair to say that it was very difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for black men to get a fair trial for the alleged rape of a white woman in the old South."

It might be fair to say that it is very difficult, perhaps nearly impossible, for black men to get a fair trial for the alleged rape of a white woman in the present day through the entire country.

Anonymous said...

Spike Lee could probably make a good movie out of this story if we brought it to his attention.

Anonymous said...

AFOR: the Law is not just redefining what "child porn" is but they are totally making it up as they go along and feminised judges are permitting prosecutors to get away with and to con juries into believing that it really is child porn.
Child porn means pictures of a child engaged in some sexual activity, simple nudity is not porn. But these prosecutors are so perverted that almost any picture of a child can be interpreted as porn if they want to. If I were to take a pic of a beach scene and had got a topless girl in the picture that can be viewed as "child porn" by these freak prosecutors if the girl was a day shy of 18. The age of 18 is also absurd even if it is real porn because the age of consent is 16.So this means that a man could legally have sex with a 16yo but if he took a nude( or even "provocative" pic) of her he is guilty of posessing and making child porn.

Anonymous said...

AFOR: this will help a great deal

http://www.evidence-eliminator.com/

Anonymous said...

Uhhh, it's a much better idea to refrain from downloading any illegal images than to rely on Evidence Eliminator or any other program.

I wouldn't even consider touching that shit.

Anonymous said...

Anon @10.49- There's always a possibility that you may accidently download something or someone using your computer does(this doesn't apply to me since no one has ever used any PC of mine)
There are probably many men who have things on their pc that can be construed in this insane era of witch hunting as "child porn" In some places it doesn't even matter if the female is 25 if she "appears" to be under 18.

And btw, EE sold by Robin Hood software is the best eraser and overwriter made. I've used it since 2000 when it was in its infancy. But it's also good to use just to claen out junk quickly without overwriting by just using the Options and choosing what you want cleaned (takes a few minutes) Of course, nothing is perfect.esp if someone else uses your pc. They can dl some pic and just place it in a file somewhere so of course EE will just think it's something you want to keep and not erase it but I assume that you know how computers work and understand this.

There are other programmes that will locate all picture type files on your pc and you may want to use this just to see what you actually have or something you're not aware of.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 10.49-btw, who do you work for? I notice that on these leo sites they hate EE because it can defeat any forensic equipment they have. And even if they can recover a few fragments it will never stand up as evidence in court.

Anonymous said...

Of course, nothing is perfect.esp if someone else uses your pc. They can dl some pic and just place it in a file somewhere so of course EE will just think it's something you want to keep and not erase it but I assume that you know how computers work and understand this.

****

Oh, definitely. Or your computer can be hijacked and used to transmit images to other computers, which you are completely unaware of -- although you might get off if you can prove that you weren't aware of what's on your PC (I've read news stories in which that's exactly what happened).

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 1.48- read what you wrote. If YOU can PROVE you didn't know it was there. How do you do that? It's really the prosecutor's duty to prove you intentionally had unlawful material on your pc but in real life (and this is nothing new) you're guilty until you can prove you're innocent. If you're on trial that jury for some reason starts out believing you're guilty. You were arrested, charges, put on trial and you're sitting at the defence table;you must have done something wrong.
Just take my word for it, it's better not to give the cops or prosecutors anything that can be used against you even if you came by it innocently. There are probably a lot of people who have illegal things on their pc's and are unaware of it and in rare cases it becomes known only after they are being investigated for some other crime.

Anonymous said...

PS- a good firewall will help prevent your pc from being hijacked. And as I said, nothing is perfect or foolproof but I've always used Zone Alarm since it came out originally and it does monitor what's coming in as well as what's being transmitted and will pick it up. You also don't want a static IP because this makes it easier for hackers to locate you again.

Anonymous said...

AfOR said...
There is a parallel.

The full stop / period at the end of the previous sentence could, just as easily, have been an 800 x 600 pixel jpeg, resized in the HTML to appear 1 x 1 pixels.

So, already, by the time you have read this far, your computer and operating system, which means in legal terms YOU, have downloaded and MADE a copy of (in your browsers cache) that image.

If that image happened to be child pornography, you get charged with MAKING child pornography, and you *will* be found guilty and sentenced, because you fulfil all the criteria for a guaranteed conviction.

No "man in the street" would define what you just did as "making" that image, and yet the Law now does.

All that is required is to Legally re-define the meaning of a word, so that it no longer means what it means to the man in the street.

This is *exactly* what the feminists / grievance industry has achieved over the past 40 years.

It becomes even more "interesting" when you start to cross borders, which all net users do all the time, without concious thought or realisation.

I could link to copies of The Sun newspaper, famous for its Page 3 topless pictures of girls in provocative poses, historically, such as Sam Fox, being 16 years and 4 days old when they first appeared.

I believe under current US laws that would make all of you "slam dunk" convicted child pornographers.

Of course the press articles describing your convictions would go to some lengths to point out that you convicted paedophiles were actually convicted for viewing something that was quite legal in the country of origin, and point out that we are talking about a young woman of 16 with well developed mammaries appearing in a major national newspaper in the UK, and not, as your conviction will imply, some child about 3 foot high...

Maybe it's time for some honeytraps.

May 28, 2010 6:33:00 AM

I remember when mothers would have pictures made of their babies laying naked on a pillow. Such pictures were made for memory's sake, not for erotic or pornographic purposes. Lots of mothers wanted to remember their children the way they were born. Now, pictures like these are considered child porn.

Anonymous said...

Defiant Judge Takes On Child Pornography Law
5-22-2010 New York:

In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls “the unnecessary cruelty of the law.” His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.

Judge Jack B. Weinstein in his chambers in the United States District Courthouse in Brooklyn in April.

Judge Weinstein, who sits in the United States District Court in Brooklyn, has twice thrown out convictions that would have ensured that the man spend at least five years behind bars. He has pledged to break protocol and inform the next jury about the mandatory prison sentence that the charges carry. And he recently declared that the man, who is awaiting a new trial, did not need an electronic ankle bracelet because he posed “no risk to society.”

There is little public sympathy for collectors of child pornography. Yet across the country, an increasing number of federal judges have come to their defense, criticizing changes to sentencing laws that have effectively quadrupled their average prison term over the last decade.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 20-year child pornography sentence by ruling that the sentencing guidelines for such cases, “unless applied with great care, can lead to unreasonable sentences.” The decision noted that the recommended sentences for looking at pictures of children being sexually abused sometimes eclipse those for actually sexually abusing a child.

Judge Weinstein has gone to extraordinary lengths to challenge the strict punishments, issuing a series of rulings that directly attack the mandatory five-year prison sentence faced by defendants charged with receiving child pornography.

Anonymous said...

I remember when mothers would have pictures made of their babies laying naked on a pillow. Such pictures were made for memory's sake, not for erotic or pornographic purposes. Lots of mothers wanted to remember their children the way they were born. Now, pictures like these are considered child porn.
***

I don't think you would be prosecuted for taking a picture of your naked baby. That isn't at all the same as the massive collection of prepubescent girls discussed in the article above.

Anonymous said...

Anon @1.23-the charges may not stick but parents have still been arrested for having a pic of their baby in the bathtub.
All of these cases cost people money and a lot of aggravation even though the charges may not be sustained. The cops may get search warrants and search (wreck) their homes and confiscate computers that they may need for work.
Personally I think that these laws (and a lot of others) are there to harass people and keep them in a state of anxiety thereby better able to control the population. There is no other rational explanation.

Anonymous said...

That's true enough. And that's what happens when you give prosecutors too long of a leash.

Dr. Snark said...

If it were up to feminists, Jim Crow would dance again.

Anonymous said...

You may be interested to know that today’s residency restrictions have a distant cousin, Jim Crow Laws. In the sections in blue to follow I challenge you to replace the word negro with sex offender and see how well it fits in today’s laws code. The only difference is that sex offenders are treated far worse since they do not get separate but equal protection under the law.





Jim Crow Laws - Housing
1. There shall be separate buildings, not nearer than one fourth mile to each other, one for white boys and one for negro boys. White boys and negro boys shall not, in any manner, be associated together or worked together. Florida
2. The children of white and colored races committed to the houses of reform shall be kept entirely separate from each other. Kentucky
3. Any person...who shall rent any part of any such building to a negro person or a negro family when such building is already in whole or in part in occupancy by a white person or white family, or vice versa when the building is in occupancy by a negro person or negro family, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five ($25.00) nor more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars or be imprisoned not less than 10, or more than 60 days, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. Louisiana

Anonymous said...

Another stressor for former sex offenders is that of finding employment. Many of us know how great the stress of being unemployed can be. But think of this. If you had a family, a wife, kids, and a dog and you did find a place to hire you, but then they learn that their address must be listed on the public registry, how great a stressor would it be for you to lose the only chance you have to feed your family because of a law that protects no one? How much would this hurt your family?

Jim Crow Law - Labor
1. No colored barber shall serve as a barber [to] white women or girls. Georgia
2. All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or serve the two races anywhere under the same license. Georgia
3. All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time. Georgia

Anonymous said...

Surely we would want former sex offenders to get an education so that they can become more productive, trustworthy citizens, right? In many states schools and libraries are off limits to sex offenders. Even if they are allowed on school property they must register and this registration becomes public. At that point, many times, vigilantes step in and harass the registered offender until they quit. In earlier times these vigilantes were known as the KKK. I have a question for you, would you have been one of the courageous to stand up for black people when standing up for black people was looked down upon or would you dawn the robe?

Jim Crow Law – Education/Libraries
1. [The County Board of Education] shall provide schools of two kinds; those for white children and those for colored children. Texas
2. Separate schools shall be maintained for the children of the white and colored races. Mississippi
3. The schools for white children and the schools for negro children shall be conducted separately. Florida
4. The board of trustees shall...maintain a separate building...on separate ground for the admission, care, instruction, and support of all blind persons of the colored or black race. Louisiana
5. Separate free schools shall be established for the education of children of African descent; and it shall be unlawful for any colored child to attend any white school, or any white child to attend a colored school. Missouri
6. Separate rooms [shall] be provided for the teaching of pupils of African descent, and [when] said rooms are so provided, such pupils may not be admitted to the school rooms occupied and used by pupils of Caucasian or other descent. New Mexico
7. Textbooks: Books shall not be interchangeable between the white and colored schools, but shall continue to be used by the race first using them. North Carolina
8. Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored race are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each offense. Oklahoma
9. Libraries: The state librarian is directed to fit up and maintain a separate place for the use of the colored people who may come to the library for the purpose of reading books or periodicals. North Carolina
10. Any white person of such county may use the county free library under the rules and regulations prescribed by the commissioners court and may be entitled to all the privileges thereof. Said court shall make proper provision for the negroes of said county to be served through a separate branch or branches of the county free library, which shall be administered by [a] custodian of the negro race under the supervision of the county librarian. Texas

Anonymous said...

If this is not enough, what about restricting sex offenders from parks. This must be a new thing…right?

Jim Crow Law - Parks
1. It shall be unlawful for colored people to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the benefit, use and enjoyment of white persons...and unlawful for any white person to frequent any park owned or maintained by the city for the use and benefit of colored persons. Georgia
2. It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play baseball on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball in any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race. Georgia

A few states allow probation officers to tell a registered offender, on probation or parole, who can live in their home with them, such as a wife or girlfriend. Some states even allow probation officers to forbid a registered offender under their supervision from marrying. Again this is not new but is a civil and human rights violation.

Jim Crow Law – Cohabitation/Marriage
1. Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve (12) months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred ($500.00) dollars. Florida
2. All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited. Florida
3. The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro, Mongolian, Malay, or Hindu shall be null and void. Arizona
4. The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void. Mississippi
5. It shall be unlawful for a white person to marry anyone except a white person. Any marriage in violation of this section shall be void. Georgia
6. All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, or between a white person and a member of the Malay race; or between the negro and a member of the Malay race; or between a person of Negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive, and a member of the Malay race, are forever prohibited, and shall be void. Maryland
7. All marriages between...white persons and negroes or white persons and Mongolians...are prohibited and declared absolutely void...No person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood shall be permitted to marry any white person, nor shall any white person be permitted to marry any negro or person having one-eighth part or more of negro blood. Missouri
8. All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are and shall be illegal and void. Wyoming

Anonymous said...

What about the stress of travel restrictions. What if your wife had dreamed of going on a special vacation with you. You saved for years to take her on that trip and then one day, many years after your crime and release from prison, a new law is enacted and you can no longer travel abroad without jumping through hoops. What if the law was designed in a way that the foreign country would refuse your entry, even if you are no danger at all. How much stress would this cause you? How much would it hurt your wife?

Jim Crow Laws – Travel Restrictions
1. The conductor must tell each passenger where to sit, that is, in the car or section of the car indicated for his race. If a passenger does not comply, he will be ejected from the train and the railroad will not be liable to damage claims resulting from the ejection. (This law is not operative in the case of passengers of either race who enter the State on a trip from another State which has no such law.) Alabama
2. Unlawful to willfully refuse or fail to comply with any reasonable rule, regulation or directive; penalty is $500 maximum.
3. When a passenger has been assigned an accommodation, he must stay there. The conductor and others of the train crew have the power to eject passengers. Georgia
4. This separation must be maintained on sleeping cars also. Car officials have the power to require and maintain this separation and have the power to punish if the public does not maintain it. Georgia
5. If a passenger refuses an assignment made by a company, he faces a fine of $25 or 30 days. Louisiana
6. A passenger may be ejected from a station for refusal to go to the place assigned him. Louisiana
7. If the driver does not assign passengers to accommodations in this way he may be fined from $100 to $500. Louisiana
8. No passenger may enter any part of the train if the conductor has told him not to. To do so, constitutes a misdemeanor for which a fine of $10 may be imposed. North Carolina
9. Whites must take seats from the front and colored from the rear. If a passenger is told to move in order to maintain this pattern of seating, he must do it or face a misdemeanor charge for which he may be fined $50 or 30 days. Company officials have police powers to carry out the provisions of this act. North Carolina
10. A company employee or agent may reapportion the seating, if necessary, compelling passengers to move as often as may be necessary. Provided, however, that no white and colored persons shall occupy contiguous seats. A company agent failing to carry out these provisions may be fined $5 to $25. A passenger who refuses to act in accordance with these regulations, after having been told of his violation of the law, is guilty of a misdemeanor for which he may be fined $5 to $25. Furthermore, the passenger may be ejected, and may secure no part of his fare in return. VIRGINIA

Anonymous said...

You see, laws like these are not new. The only difference is the target. Today it is fashionable to hate sex offenders. It is the, "In thing". It also shows that we have not evolved as a people. We like to hate someone. We like to feel power over them to elevate ourselves above them. We are small minded individuals.

Yes, I know, some of you would say that sex offenders are different, that they are dangerous and that blacks were not. The truth is, that was the exact argument that was used against black people. Black men were said to be such a danger to white women and children that they could not even go to the same parks, schools or libraries as white women and children. True, there were a few incidences where black men did rape and kill white women, however was it sound reasoning to punish the whole race for the crimes of just a few. We know the answer to that but we still continue down that same path today. Prejudice is based on hate, fear and ignorance.

This same prejudice is at work again today. Studies show that 94.7% of former sex offenders are no danger to you or anyone and yet the public and politicians call for more laws against this entire class, even those who have reformed and been crime free for decades. We prefer to think that they cannot change. The same was said of the black man, “It is in his nature.” The lies of fearful uninformed people.

No matter how you slice it targeting sex offenders as a class is prejudice and prejudice comes in many forms. The measure of a person is if they can lift themselves above the prejudice or if they succumb to their base emotions, their ego, their hate.

After reading this, if you are still convinced that more restrictions on former sex offenders are just and due, then it is likely that you would have fit in well during the times of the Jim Crow Laws, laws that unjustly targeted a whole class of American citizens.

I however would have fared no better during those dark ages of American history than I do today when the new "Niggers" (not meant offensively) in town are the sex offenders.

Each of us has a choice. We can learn the facts and listen to the experts or we can succumb to hate and fear.

The choice is yours, robe or no robe…

R. English, rode free.

(R. English is a cartoonist/artist/author, an activist, a husband and a father. But most of all he is an ardent fighter for the underdog and for civil and human rights.) www.sosen.org

Dr. Snark said...

"The only difference is that sex offenders are treated far worse since they do not get separate but equal protection under the law."

Neither did blacks, actually. Calling it 'separate but equal' did not make it so by a LONG stretch.

Dr. Snark said...

But you do know, we're not advocating for sex offenders here? LOL! Quite on the contrary!

Anonymous said...

Studies show that 94.7% of former sex offenders are no danger to you or anyone and yet the public and politicians call for more laws against this entire class, even those who have reformed and been crime free for decades.

***

Or 97%, if you discount those who are arrested again but not convicted. You have to wonder why convicted sex offenders are the only ones on the database, even though they have a substantially lower chance of re-offending than other convicted felons.

The answer is obvious: because of the word "sex." The public is easily driven into hysterics by rape accusations (whether true or not), so the politicians pander to their fear and ignorance. And as we all know, ridiculously harsh sentences put the innocent at risk as well as the guilty.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Snark said...
But you do know, we're not advocating for sex offenders here? LOL! Quite on the contrary!

Jun 1, 2010 9:44:00 AM


What do you think a person wrongly convicted of rape is?

No one is advocating for 'sex offenders' here.

We are advocating for justice and Constitutional rights. O U R Constitutional rights.

"...when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up..."